Welcome to the Piano World Piano ForumsOver 2.5 million posts about pianos, digital pianos, and all types of keyboard instruments
Join the World's Largest Community of Piano Lovers
(it's free)
It's Fun to Play the Piano ... Please Pass It On!

Great potential?That's what they said about v2.That's what they said about v3.That's what they now say about v4.Apparently "great potential" means "disappointment"?

Haha. Yeah. Well when you put that way...

But seriously, it seems almost impossible that they won't get it right eventually. Theoretically the use of modelling should produce perfect results, but that is dependent on both a perfect model and perfect execution. They clearly have neither at this point, and yes, considering how they pitch it to you, that is somewhat of a disappointment.

Great potential?That's what they said about v2.That's what they said about v3.That's what they now say about v4.Apparently "great potential" means "disappointment"?

This is true, and as a fan/user myself I am usually slightly disappointed with the marginal at best improvements, but progress is progress; even if it will take them years to perfect (and if that never happens, well then at least the journey brought me some enjoyment and hope along the way :D). I think the demos sound better than D4, which I was particularly disappointed with. I will be buying the Bluthner to try in the next few days...it's not like it costs a fortune.

I really like the idea of a synthesized piano sound (as an engineer) but listening to the sample demos, it indeed sounds very obviously synthetic! Somehow it lacks dynamics or edge or something, like it's compressed.

When you create a sampled piano there is no issue convincing people you actually put a microphone on the real thing and recorded it. You might blow the recording or especially playback in any number of ways, but the basic tone is generally there.

Modelers have a really tough row to hoe because everyone knows it's fake up-front and so some will never be convinced if only on unconscious principle. It doesn't help that the improvements to realism are perhaps too incremental, and that they tend to go long in the over-promising department. These guys really need to stay away from the cool-aid.

When you create a sampled piano there is no issue convincing people you actually put a microphone on the real thing and recorded it. You might blow the recording or especially playback in any number of ways, but the basic tone is generally there.

Modelers have a really tough row to hoe because everyone knows it's fake up-front and so some will never be convinced if only on unconscious principle. It doesn't help that the improvements to realism are perhaps too incremental, and that they tend to go long in the over-promising department. These guys really need to stay away from the cool-aid.

@dewster,

Wise words have been spoken here, as it is truly a real dilemma to see if modeling (the "sounds" at least) is ever going match sampling, as there isn't any best choice with either one, as of yet.

Theoretically the use of modelling should produce perfect results, but that is dependent on both a perfect model and perfect execution.

Is that all? And I thought it was going to be difficult. We can also produce computers capable of perfect human intelligence, we just need a perfect model of the brain and perfect execution.

I received the Ivory II American (Steinway) Concert D today. Amazing how much it sounds like a the Ivory II German (Steinway) D, Vintage (Steinway) D and the Garritan Authorized Steinway D (may it rest in peace). All four of them are voiced a bit differently, but they are unmistakably Steinway's and don't sound like Yamaha's or Bosi's or any other pianos. Each applies modeling processes to actual samples. As an engineer, I'm fascinated by 100% modeling as a technology challenge. But as an amateur piano player looking for the best digital emulation of an acoustic piano, Pianoteq isn't even close to these sampling products.

But as an amateur piano player looking for the best digital emulation of an acoustic piano, Pianoteq isn't even close to these sampling products.

Regarding sound, sampled pianos are going to be more like the real thing for obvious reasons (they are recordings of the real thing), and modelled are never going to be so good. Anyway digitals (sampled, modelled or whatever tech are you going to use) are never going to be as good as a real piano.

The question is, at what point they will be good enough? For me they are... for others, never will be.

Regarding playability, modelled pianos are much better than any sampled piano out there and modelled pianos behave more like an instrument. Sampled pianos does not behave like a piano, but more like a very ellaborated sampler. The pedal tends to be the weakest link on a sampled piano. At least for me, that is a huge difference and very noticeable... but others care more about sound than about playability (and I respect that ).

But it's good to have so many choices... each player may be looking for something different, and what is great for one may be not so great for other, and vice versa.

I carefully layer Pianoteq - with tweaks - to my Kawai PHI piano. Works for the attack phase (Kawai) and sustain / release and resonances (Pianoteq). Takes a lot of tweaking, but works for me. (For classical work).

When I just wan't to play and have fun, I don't bother about such details and just play the Kawai. Not perfect but good enough for me.

Regarding playability, modelled pianos are much better than any sampled piano out there and modelled pianos behave more like an instrument. Sampled pianos does not behave like a piano, but more like a very ellaborated sampler. The pedal tends to be the weakest link on a sampled piano. At least for me, that is a huge difference and very noticeable...

I don't understand or experience the playability problem you are talking about. Half pedaling, re-pedaling work fine. Pedaling is modeled behavior for both the modeled piano and sampled piano, so what's the pedaling problem?

@ JFP :I am also getting results with experimenting to layer an "attack piano" sound with Pianoteq's beautiful sustain and resonance. Sometimes I use my Casio PX-330, and when I layer in a dash of Pianoteq via PX's audio inputs - the PX really feels more like the real thing, when you feel the piano vibrate with the onboard speakers. PX-330's (too) fast decay is more of a plus in this context!

In Apple's Mainstage, I use the EXS24's envelope to just fade out during the first seconds of sound, as a Pianoteq-layer then is left resonating alone. Of course you need to work a bit to mask the transition, but it's surprisingly doable...

I love the playability of Pianoteq, but it still need some help in the attack - it's the first second of the pianosound that's hard to nail, it seems...

I don't understand or experience the playability problem you are talking about. Half pedaling, re-pedaling work fine. Pedaling is modeled behavior for both the modeled piano and sampled piano, so what's the pedaling problem?

It's all about how each one experiences playing... and experience is (luckily) not the same for everybody.

I have Galaxy Vintage D (that's what I can talk about... I've not tried every sampled piano out there so YMMV), and it has a great piano sound and I like it a lot, but sometimes I can notice the layers and that annoys me a bit. Does not happen with Pianoteq... it is more like a real piano in that department. Pedalling behaviour also seems to me more realistic in Pianoteq... Can be a bit weird sometimes with Vintage D (but it is quite good, anyway)...Vintage D half pedalling works quite bad in my computer (maybe I have something misconfigured, or it does not work well with my continuous pedal, don't know) and in Pianoteq works flawlessly.

Of course, regarding sound, Pianoteq loses hands down... but the last version has reached for me the "good enough" point. Anyway I usually don't play solo (I use Band in a Box sometimes, or play over an MP3, or with other virtual instruments) and in a mix, sound is not so important.

I have Galaxy Vintage D (that's what I can talk about... I've not tried every sampled piano out there so YMMV)...

Originally Posted By: kurtie

Regarding playability, modelled pianos are much better than any sampled piano out there and modelled pianos behave more like an instrument. Sampled pianos does not behave like a piano, but more like a very ellaborated sampler. The pedal tends to be the weakest link on a sampled piano.

So your sweeping indictment of ALL sampled pianos is based on your experience with one sampled piano (which you probably never upgraded to the latest version that fixes its original buggy pedaling behavior?). Amazing!

So your sweeping indictment of ALL sampled pianos is based on your experience with one sampled piano (which you probably never upgraded to the latest version that fixes its original buggy pedaling behavior?). Amazing!

I'm stating my oppinion, not "sweeping indictments"... AFAIK there is not any court in this forum. I've tried some more but Vintage D is the only one I've played for hundreds of hours and I know it well.

I'm stating my oppinion, not "sweeping indictments"... AFAIK there is not any court in this forum. I've tried some more but Vintage D is the only one I've played for hundreds of hours and I know it well.

Hmm, if you play it that much you should definitely update if you have not already.

But depending on your DP there is the possibility that the partial pedal on Vintage D (or any software, including PianoTeq) may not work the way you want it. Progressive DP pedals only transmit a few velocities (that way they don't completely swamp the DP with signals). For example, you might get velocity 0, 15, 30, etc. The software defines a range of pedal midi levels that it considers to be the half-pedal rannge. Now if the software is considering MIDI levels between, say, 50 and 60 to be the half pedal range, it's possible that your pedals don't actual transmit any levels in that range (or it's hard to get there).

For this reason, software pianos should have tunable parameters for the level and width of the half pedal range. Most do not, although I think you can translate the MIDI velocities using a third party tool or maybe even Kontakt, just as we might remap the velocity curve for keys.

Anyway, it's completely possible that you are having problems with half pedal while others do not because your hardware isn't sending the velocities Vintage D expects. Just FYI.

Personally I have always found Vintage D partial pedal and repedalling to work swimmingly.

So your sweeping indictment of ALL sampled pianos is based on your experience with one sampled piano (which you probably never upgraded to the latest version that fixes its original buggy pedaling behavior?). Amazing!

I'm stating my oppinion, not "sweeping indictments"... AFAIK there is not any court in this forum. I've tried some more but Vintage D is the only one I've played for hundreds of hours and I know it well.

Well your statement referred to ALL sampled pianos. So your statement was pretty sweeping. You can state any opinion you want, but expect some criticism when you make a statement as general as this one and then say you have experience with only ONE sampled piano:

Originally Posted By: kurtie

Regarding playability, modelled pianos are much better than any sampled piano out there and modelled pianos behave more like an instrument. Sampled pianos does not behave like a piano, but more like a very ellaborated sampler. The pedal tends to be the weakest link on a sampled piano.

On top of that your specific criticism of the Vintage D is bogus. It's pedaling works great unless you have never updated the original release code. So you took a problem that doesn't exist anymore (or is specific to your hardware and correctable as discussed by gvfarns) and generalized it into a problem with ALL sampled pianos.

If you prefer Pianoteq over the Vintage D, or any other sampled piano you have tried, that's great. You can state any opinion you want, and there will never be agreement on everything related to digital pianos. But we try to help people here and a lot of folks new to digital pianos visit looking for information. So if you make sweeping generalizations that don't apply to all products expect to be challenged, and if you make criticisms of specific products that aren't valid issues for other users than expect that to be corrected as well.

In the spirit of trying to help, make sure your Vintage D has been updated to the latest version. The updater process with Kontakt and Vintage D is a bit confusing and has fooled a number of users into thinking they have updated when they really haven't (there are other threads on that subject). Make sure you are actually playing the latest version. If you still have problems pedaling with a pedal that supports multiple MIDI values, then read gvfarns comments. I don't know if that MIDI hardware issue is very common, but it is correctable with a software utility.

I like pianoteq for the natural response to my playing and resonances and natural decay. I don't like pianoteq for its attack phase. Something artificial and too " woolly / thick " to my ears. From The early pianoteq versions I always missed the 'air' it he sound getting to thick and tiresome after a while. Hard to pin down on exactly what causes this. Overall I think pianoteq is not bad at all, escpacially if you tweak it to your liking. And it's only a few hundred bucks. Can't by a real grand for that...

Perhaps it's that I'm too used/tired with samples that I'm looking for something different. Perhaps it might be that I'm kinda like a 'fan' of pianoteq, and got the models as a prize for a competition long ago... Nicklas has been kind enough to keep supplying me with the new models and I keep liking what I hear.

I will admit that if I compare the older models to this one, there's a lot of improvement! And in regards to playability there's nothing like pianoteq. And I do have (had) the old Giga piano, Ivory I, the Garritan Steinway and a few more... :-/

I will admit that if I compare the older models to this one, there's a lot of improvement! And in regards to playability there's nothing like pianoteq. And I do have (had) the old Giga piano, Ivory I, the Garritan Steinway and a few more... :-/

Those are all first generation sampled pianos. They don't play well like the current generation does. Well, actually I've never tried Garritan, so that one might actually be good. I find Ivory 1 basically unusable, for example.

People make a bigger deal about sampling vs modeling than makes sense. The basic tone of the piano can be sampled or synthesized. That much is true. Everything else must be modeled, whether it be in PianoTeq or in a "sampled" piano. A sampled piano records 13 or 20 levels or whatever to get the basic tone and interpolates to get the other 117 or so available. PianoTeq synthesizes all 127 of them. Beyond that there is no difference.

Now, you may think PianoTeq has done a better, more complete job at modeling all the nuances and you have a valid point, but it makes no sense to draw a line between pianos with and without modeling because all current and future pianos have modeling in them.

The only remaining question is whether it makes sense to synthesize the piano tone or construct it by recording/interpolating. Based on what I see, we will continue to see the latter sounding better for a long time. But the modeling aspects of all these pianos will continue to improve until there can be no more gains in playability. Actually, we are nearly there now.

Interpolating between, say, 20 sample layers is not modeling at all. And I've seen nothing to suggest that they even do such interpolation. If a piano library has 20 sample layers, then it has 20 sample layers, not 127.

It may have 127 volume levels. But shifting among them is simple audio processing, not modeling.

There are 127 distinct timbres if the timbre is interpolated between layers (which admittedly, is only true for some pianos, Ivory being one...this is one reason that people who say they can hear the layers in Ivory are so full of crap). Sympathetic resonance sounds, etc, are computed in every piano using an algorithm I'd happily call modeling. If it's a bunch of code and not a recording that produces the sound, it's modeling in my book. Further, some of PT's sounds (like hammer noise) are implement more like a recording than modeling because they are pre-computed and included as audio files.

For marketing purposes, the PT people talk about their modeling as if they created a piano image using CAD or something and then all the details just fall out. No, they had to code up every behavior that's there, just as a sampled piano does. Strip away their code for the various resonances and reverbs and you would get a tone that sounds like a simple string being stuck, just more artificial.

Now if the sampled piano neglects to model some particular aspect of the sound (i.e., they don't code up some algorithm to produce the sound) that's a shortcoming of that particular piano's implementation, but it doesn't mean the things they did code up and include are done in some way that is completely different from that the PT people had to do.

Edit: reference for ivory:synthogy's ivory page. Notice the blurb about sample interpolation technology and also the bit about harmonic resonance modeling. Actually, you know there is what I call modeling in your sampled piano because of all the many things you can change about the timbre and behavior. It's even more clear in hardware digital pianos.